The whole innocent prisoner thing makes no sense. Its an illogical penalty just to make things harder.

[Horrow]

I have no problem with a game choosing to be difficult as long as its a fair difficulty. Someone is getting into a bad mood because they're hauling corpses? I can understand why they would be upset. That makes sense and its fair they're upset when doing such a thing.

Their bonded animal dies? I can understand why they would be upset. That makes sense, I accept that penalty.

Upset for wearing tattered clothing? That to makes sense, I accept being penalized for not staying atop of keeping them dressed in decent clothing.

Executing prisoners that won't join my colony and my people get upset due to 'innocent' prisoners dying? Uhhh, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. That's not logical at all. No one in their right mind would EVER dub their attackers/invaders as innocent. Prisoner A,B, and C all came and attacked my colony. Either injuring my colonists or killing their pets. But all of a sudden, they're now innocent when captured?

How at all does that make sense? It doesn't. Its honestly a stupid design decision made just to make the game harder. Its illogical and unfair to be penalized for executing dangerous individuals that would just attack me again if I release them.

[Guide]

I assume it means they are innocent after you decided to capture them instead of finishing them off, they commited no more crimes other than maybe attempted escape. You could give them a few surgical ops and then release them if it's after the fact.

[BlackSmokeDMax]

Correct, up until you took them prisoner, you can kill them with no major repercussions. As soon as you take them prisoner, you are now responsible for their well-being.

Don't want the problems, never capture anyone. Seems pretty balanced, maybe not perfectly yet, but close.

[Fabio]

You're innocent from the moment you can't defend yourself against a threat. That's the situation in real life as well. Once you capture a pawn, their actions become limited to sleeping and eating basically, they can't fight back. You become responsible for their lives.

Once they break out of prison, they can be shot to death with no penalties (right?).

[The Word-Mule]

Somebody's never heard of the Geneva Convention. They have no problem with you letting attackers bleed out on the dirty ground outside, but as soon as you capture them, you're responsible for their wellbeing.

[Zalzany]

You don't get it because you not in touch with modern man. Execution even of criminals big deal these days. Even if they are rapists and/or murders for some reason minus texas no one wants to take part in excuting them. Them dying in a gun fight that is cool, but them in cuffs being killed for some reason people don't like that...

I mean find one of those documenteries on it, even with places that are cool with it, its pain in the but to do it. People have to do firing lines with blanks handed out, and only a few live rounds to lesson the guilt and PTSD odds for the guys doing it. The chair messed up a few times and scared people for life involved, and lethal injection is a two man job with only one of them being real executionor and they try the damndest to make sure they never find out which one who fliped the switch for the injection to be found out.

Death on battlefeild that is just nasty part of life, easier to cope with they had weapon you had a weapon. You want get away trying leaving the door open or starving them to death that is less of a hit to the moral.

[John Hammond]

I get what OP is saying though. While they are innocent going forward once you judge them worthy of being captured you can still be mentally okay with an innocent prisoner dying and not be a psychopath. I guess instead of making it have a moral implication it could just drop your rep with the faction they belong to instead. And if you're the sensitive sort just add a trait that would make you feel morally stressed about it.

[Zalzany]

You can, we don't see it, we never interact with them. See you looking at wrong some guy dying in jail 2 hours from me, I never met, that is not gonna phase me. I have to go feed him every day and talk to him trying to recruit him and you kill him yeah that is completly diffrent experince lol. These priosners are not miles away in most bases they are short walk form you dinning hall, or bedroom. You get to hear them die.

[Hammer Of Evil]

Publicado originalmente por BlackSmokeDMax:

Correct, up until you took them prisoner, you can kill them with no major repercussions. As soon as you take them prisoner, you are now responsible for their well-being.

Don't want the problems, never capture anyone. Seems pretty balanced, maybe not perfectly yet, but close.

Publicado originalmente por Twitch/Dragondave17:

I assume it means they are innocent after you decided to capture them instead of finishing them off, they commited no more crimes other than maybe attempted escape. You could give them a few surgical ops and then release them if it's after the fact.

I know what you guys are saying with this, but consider this: (speaking from our colonist point of view) this guy tried to kill us all, steal our dogs and women.

I believe perhaps when you take someone prisoner, there could be a button - like 'forgiven' or 'unforgiven' and basically if you have a prisoner who you'd want to recruit you'd have to forgive them of their crimes.

That way - yes. if you wish to have this guy become part of the colony you have to forgive them their transgressions and then yes if you kill them or harvest them after that - there should be a penalty.

If unforgiven - you can still have the prisoner, but there's no penalty for leaving them shackled in a room starving to death, selling them into slavery, or 'spare parts' as it were.

Plus - what about an evil colony. You have a group of cutthroats who are hardened criminals and you're intercepting traders and stealing everything you can. This allows more immersion so you can freely participate in the slave trade/praise the blood gods with your evil colonists.

[BonPadre]

Publicado originalmente por Horrow:

Its illogical and unfair to be penalized for executing dangerous individuals that would just attack me again if I release them.

May I just ask from where you got that information that this very released prisoner will attack you again ?

I admit I do not really pay attention to who is attacking me... Could have been A-B-C, captured B, then an other attack could be D-E-F or D-E-B I couldn't care less... so I just don't see why you execute them instead of releasing a too difficult to recruit prisonner...

Now that said, you know you get a little less mood impact for selling him as a slave (-5 as opposed to the -7 for execution or add a -6 if the said guy died to organ harvesting)... so why simply execute him ? when you can make decent money by selling him, or no penalty for releasing?

[John Hammond]

Publicado originalmente por BonPadre:

Publicado originalmente por Horrow:

Its illogical and unfair to be penalized for executing dangerous individuals that would just attack me again if I release them.

May I just ask from where you got that information that this very released prisoner will attack you again ?

I admit I do not really pay attention to who is attacking me... Could have been A-B-C, captured B, then an other attack could be D-E-F or D-E-B I couldn't care less... so I just don't see why you execute them instead of releasing a too difficult to recruit prisonner...

Now that said, you know you get a little less mood impact for selling him as a slave... so why simply execute him ? when you can make decent money ?

He's talking about the penalty from a logical standpoint. Let's say you and a group others were stranded. A tribal faction attacked you all. They injured one of you or even killed one. Now you all killed most of them. Some got away and you were able to capture one. The one you captured was weakened. Bleeding out maybe. You tried to get info out of them or reason with them but it was seemingly impossible. You have limited medical supplies and food. You decide its best to put them down and bury them so they don't stink up the area. Now are you sad you killed this so called innocent prisoner? Maybe. I wouldn't be. I don't think some of my friends would be. I know my dad wouldn't give a damn about them. Doesn't make anyone of them a psychopath. The one that kills the individual may feel bad for doing it if they're not used to that sorta thing, but that's on them; not the whole group. I believe that's the gist of the issue OP has with this. Also if it helps think of it from a basic tribal scenario instead of a well educated cushy stranded colonist scenario.

[BlackSmokeDMax]

Publicado originalmente por Space Pirate Captain Ben Dodgers:

Publicado originalmente por BonPadre:

May I just ask from where you got that information that this very released prisoner will attack you again ?

I admit I do not really pay attention to who is attacking me... Could have been A-B-C, captured B, then an other attack could be D-E-F or D-E-B I couldn't care less... so I just don't see why you execute them instead of releasing a too difficult to recruit prisonner...

Now that said, you know you get a little less mood impact for selling him as a slave... so why simply execute him ? when you can make decent money ?

He's talking about the penalty from a logical standpoint. Let's say you and a group others were stranded. A tribal faction attacked you all. They injured one of you or even killed one. Now you all killed most of them. Some got away and you were able to capture one. The one you captured was weakened. Bleeding out maybe. You tried to get info out of them or reason with them but it was seemingly impossible. You have limited medical supplies and food. You decide its best to put them down and bury them so they don't stink up the area. Now are you sad you killed this so called innocent prisoner? Maybe. I wouldn't be. I don't think some of my friends would be. I know my dad wouldn't give a damn about them. Doesn't make anyone of them a psychopath. The one that kills the individual may feel bad for doing it if they're not used to that sorta thing, but that's on them; not the whole group. I believe that's the gist of the issue OP has with this. Also if it helps think of it from a basic tribal scenario instead of a well educated cushy stranded colonist scenario.

Sure, but that isn't what is happening. In this game you are capturing them to consider having them join you. I think we can all agree if we were capturing them to torture info out of them the whole deal would be different.

[BonPadre]

@ Space Pirate
I get the fundamentals of the questioning, and while I agree with that... if OP rant about the penalty for killing him, then it means in my mind that you effectively kill the guy...

So I just emphasis that is not the only possible last solution... if you decide to execute him, then you are aware of the penalty and you accept it... if you do not accept it, simply release the guy...
I don't know but I do understand that for OP releasing that very guy is dangerous... while it's no more nor no less dangerous...

Add to that, depending of the penalty with faction, if not under -50, for every released in good health prisoner you get a boost with the faction... as opposed to when you execute said prisoner...

I just state game mechanics, I'm not debating an opinion though...

[Ficelle]

There is the whole prisoners stuff ala Geneva Convention, already discussed.

Then, there is balance.

Without the mood debuffs, you would never ponder about who you capture and who you let die or plain kill, you would just capture everyone.

If you capture everyone, then, that is your problem.
If you choose who you capture, prisonner death is rare.

You can play an evil colony no problem, it just requires the right traits to either negate the debuff or offset it.
Now, the too smart, depressive guy doesnt belong to such a colony...

I would personally just remove the 'innocent' part of the debuff and rename it 'prisoner died'.

[John Hammond]

Publicado originalmente por Ficelle:

There is the whole prisoners stuff ala Geneva Convention, already discussed.

Then, there is balance.

Without the mood debuffs, you would never ponder about who you capture and who you let die or plain kill, you would just capture everyone.

If you capture everyone, then, that is your problem.
If you choose who you capture, prisonner death is rare.

You can play an evil colony no problem, it just requires the right traits to either negate the debuff or offset it.
Now, the too smart, depressive guy doesnt belong to such a colony...

I would personally just remove the 'innocent' part of the debuff and rename it 'prisoner died'.

That's the thing though. I capture everyone now and release them if I'm not gonna keep them. It helps my doctors skill and faction rep. It's the most logical way to play it but not the most realistic. I get its a game and in the end if its for balance rather than realism then that's that. I still enjoy it. But at this point I see no reason to not capture everyone and release them unless they're missing a leg or have brain damage.

[therealjohnconnor]

I think the point as far as the colonist is concerned is that someone prepared to act ruthlessly towards a defenceless prisoner is quite likely to show similar ruthlessness to them in future when the chips are down. And, indeed, some colonies do survive by one half (usually the psychos) sacrificing the other.